Miscellaneous desk
< August 19	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 21 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 20

Short lived African republics that minted their own money?

Hi, I am interested in short-lived African republics, especially obscure ones, who minted their own money. I already have a Biafran pound. Any others I can read and learn about? Thanks. Edit: I define short-lived as 0-15 years, loosely. 71.180.160.98 (talk) 04:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Define "short lived"? 163.202.48.125 (talk) 07:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Central African Empire was one of the most ludicrous and tragic nations ever devised by a megalomaniac; it lasted less than 3 years. Alansplodge (talk) 12:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Central African Empire was really the Central African Republic under a different name and regime. A couple of examples that fit the O.P.'s criteria better: the Rif Republic (1921-1926); and the State of Katanga (1960-1963) also issued its own money [1]. The various South African bantustans apparently kept using the South African rand. South Sudan and Eritrea started off as unrecognized breakaway states but both eventually obtained international recognition; they may well have started issuing money before that though. --Xuxl (talk) 08:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biafra only existed for 2 and a half years or so, and it had its own currency, the Biafran pound. --Jayron32 00:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about the homelands?Transkei,Venda,Bophuthatswana and Ciskei issued their own postage stamps-I don't know about currency though Lemon martini (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Icelandic sagas

Where can I find Icelandic/Norse sagas about Fjallkonan, the Lady of the Mountain? I've already read the article, but it doesn't go into any detail about her relationship with the Norse gods, nor into any details of her mythical life or anything she was involved in -- and as a writer/storyteller, these are precisely the things I'm looking for. (Yes, I'm planning to branch out from disaster thrillers into other genres, including Viking fantasy -- but not quite yet.) Danke schoen im Voraus! 24.23.196.85 (talk) 05:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I get from the article the impression that she is not an ancient legendary character, but one created in the C18th to act as a focus for Icelandic identity. As such there probably are no significant stories about her, any more than there are about Britannia or Uncle Sam. Rojomoke (talk) 08:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point, but our article Uncle Sam specifically mentions the book "The Adventures of Uncle Sam in Search After His Lost Honor", which seems to be a story about Uncle Sam and his Adventures... SemanticMantis (talk) 21:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Johann_Baptist_Zwecker says that he illustrated a picture of her, for "Jón Árnason's Icelandic Legends, 1866." Here's a (English translation) preview on google books [2], and it says that a free ebook is also available. I don't know how much it would have about Fjallkonan, but it seems to have at least one story/legend. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everyone! So I take it that I can pretty much make up anything I want, as long as I get the "established" mythology (Aesir/trolls/Valkyries/etc.) right? ;-) 24.23.196.85 (talk) 04:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this lady Asian?

http://www.tdbank.com/exc/img/firsthome/FTHB-splash-page_couple.jpg I say she is. 71.180.160.98 (talk) 09:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to ask her. The only ethnic group that matters is the one that you see yourself as being part of. It's meaningless, borderline offensive, to put people in ethnic groups. --Viennese Waltz 10:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible to KNOW for sure. I would guess she is of African descent. She reminded me of this South African celebrity and she is Zulu. See http://theweekly.co.za/?p=11669 196.214.78.114 (talk) 10:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Asian" is a tricky and ambiguous descriptor. One simple usage is the geographic one, but that says that Israelis are Asian. It has distinctly different meanings in Britain (Indian/Pakistani) and the US/Australia (Chinese/Vietnamese). I know that in Australia it arose as a politically correct term to replace the nasty ones that had come into use during the Vietnam War. As a teacher I note that the safer adjective International is now often used to describe the foreign students paying big fees to attend Australian schools. (They're almost all from China.) Asian is generally best avoided completely. HiLo48 (talk) 10:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you ask? 163.202.48.125 (talk) 10:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's also "borderline offensive" for busybodies here to lecture the OP with their personal theories about what the term "ethnic group" means. As for the picture, I think the company chose a couple of folks who appear to be non-Caucasian, to try to broaden the appeal of whatever they're advertising. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who gave a lecture on their personal theory of the term "ethnic group"? 163.202.48.125 (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He means me, and I did no such thing of course. I was actually referring to the current consensus on this matter. --Viennese Waltz 13:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement "It's meaningless, borderline offensive, to put people in ethnic groups" is your own personal opinion that has nothing to do with any "consensus", even if you wish that were true. Regardless, lecturing the OP on how he should think is not appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice. Here's the actual Manual of Style entry that reflects current consensus. MOS:IDENTITY#Identity. 86.163.2.116 (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball bugs doesn't know what he is talking about. He denies again the existence of self identification as a consensus method of defining who you are. --Lgriot (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't deny "again", or at all the idea of self-identification. Feel free to show us where in that picture there is any information about the self-identification of the woman the OP is asking about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you kind of did. I was the first person in this thread to point out that self-identification is the only answer to the OP's question, a position which has since been supported by other editors, and you dismissed it as my personal opinion. As for your second point, it leaves me scratching my head. That's the entire point – you can't tell anything about her self-identification from the picture. As I said at the very beginning, you'd have to ask her. --Viennese Waltz 15:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If your argument is that self-identification is the only way, then you are incorrect. I'm as white as the day is long, and if I decide I want to identify as black, that doesn't change the fact that I'm white. In the case of the picture posted by the OP, it's not immediately obvious what her racial background is. Nor his, for that matter. Sometimes it's more obvious, sometimes less so. And no argument that theoretically the surest way to find out is "ask her". That might be a tad impractical in this case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong on that point: if you decide to to identify as black, then you ARE black. Anyone who says you are not will have to come up with a formal definition of who is white and who is black to substantiate their claim and that formal definition is impossible to provide. So the only way you can make racial categories work is through self identification. Any other categorisation is racist because it implies you have a view on where the border is, which means you have a view that races can be be defined in a pseudo-scientific way. --Lgriot (talk) 07:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, I'm in Australia and probably of similar complexion to you. I could legally identify as a "black" Australian. Many "white" skinned people do. HiLo48 (talk) 08:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite right. Here is some official information about the complexity of the Australian legal concept of Aboriginality, but nowhere is skin colour mentioned. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know it's a little more complicated than me just saying so. But I was accepted as part of an Aboriginal community once, as a teacher, and have this odd gap in my ancestry that by geography and timing hints at the possibility that..... You know where I'm going. I have no intention of pushing any claim. It would be silly. But at times one wonders.... HiLo48 (talk) 11:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of my ancestral lines are western European; Caucasian. If I tried to "self identify as black", the response could range from ridicule to accusations of fraud. If we get to the point where race no longer "matters", then such issues will go away. We are nowhere near that point yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does race "matter" now? 163.202.48.125 (talk) 14:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where some crime has been committed and the witness needs to describe the apparent perpetrator, it's much better to say they were "of Asian/African/Polynesian/Caucasian appearance" than some lengthy description where their eyes, hair, stature, skin colour, facial structure etc etc all get mentioned separately and any mention of their apparent "race" is assiduously avoided on the grounds of political correctitude. That's where it's relevant. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that race matters to you or to the people you live around, bugs. It doesn't matter to me or to the people I live around. As far as I am concerned race is purely a social construct, and it is some tick box on a census form that the goverment feels it needs, in order to keep track of who feels they are who, just to understand racism and its issues. --Lgriot (talk) 08:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article on Asian people (which will leave you more confused then ever).--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Race" is a useful descriptor, just as tall or skinny are. I am tall, fat, and white. Whether we believe race to be a construct or not, there are visible differences between people. I don't look like Gary Coleman or Jackie Chan. Mind you, I don't look like Brad Pitt, either. Mingmingla (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that for “fat” and “tall” there are accepted averages. There is no average race. It’s not easy to describe someone who has attributes from various races. And then there’s also the problem of dealing with people who look more like another race than the race of their parents – those people probably identify themselves with the race of their parents. And it’s particularly difficult to deal with people of mixed descent (because then you’ll have to try distinguish between the various combinations of races – e.g. black/white vs back/Asian etc). The genetic similarity between the various races makes a scientific concept of “race” very difficult to be meaningful. All of this makes race a less useful descriptor – especially as we move into a future where everyone is just beige. 163.202.48.126 (talk) 09:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be very interested to hear what the "accepted average" height is. Please provide a source that doesn't include race as a co-component. Matt Deres (talk) 11:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given a group of people with different heights, you would accept that there is an “average” height of the group. The same cannot be said for a group of people from different races. That’s what I meant. 163.202.48.126 (talk) 11:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given a restaurant full of Chinese people and me (as is often the case when I'm out with my in-laws), I am the only white guy. It's much easier to identify me that way then by height (I'm usually the tallest, but I'm sitting down when I'm there so you can't tell). Even when you toss in some mixed-race people, I'm still "whiter" than them. There is decidedly an "average" race in that restaurant, and I'm not it. I can guarantee that you'll pick me out first every time in that situation. Tell me it isn't useful then, or try to identify me without referring to my being white. Mingmingla (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say she's a latino of native indian and some African and European heritage. Or she could be half Chinese, and half Afro-latino--and she does resemble a woman of that extraction I knew. Or maybe Philippine/Vietnamese. Of course you can blame the Treaty of Tordesillas for the trouble. Spain ruled the Philippines and its other west Pacific colonies through Mexico. She could very well be 100% SE Asian/Oceanic. It's fairly clear she's not half-Rusyn/half-Irish. μηδείς (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding links to articles

As nobody yet has moved the link to 'my' article mentioned on the talk page of Wilfrid Voynich can I do so myself?

'Generally speaking' is adding such links directly to the main article space OK (ie for 'respectable articles containing OR rather than opinion or puffery')? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The key question is: why would your article be cited in our article on Voynich? For instance, if your article contains information to support what is written in ours, and that claim is not already sourced, then it is a good idea to cite your article as a source, provided it meets WP:RS criteria. However, adding in your article as a source is probably unnecessary and unhelpful if there are several other sources already cited that cover the same material. Basically, before you cite your article ask: does doing so make the WP article better? There is of course a potential conflict of interest for you here, but if you explain how your article supports the content, then some other editor can make the edit, without such conflicts. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My article is 'original research and rather more information' and does not overlap with the other references - and the link has been sitting on the WV talk page since April 2010. Jackiespeel (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added it as an external link, but not as a reference. It seems best as a "companion piece" to our article, rather than as a reference to specific claims. But now it's there, and people can cite it in the future. Cheers, SemanticMantis (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian cities

What is the proper way to list a Canadian city? For example, Toronto - is it just Toronto, Canada or Toronto, Ontario or Toronto, Ontario, Canada? thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.161.108.180 (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto, Ontario, Canada seems like the way to go for me. Saying Toronto, Canada is kind of like saying Los Angeles, United States, which, to me, doesn't sounds quite right... – Connormah (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest it depends entirely on the context. For a readership in some far-off land, the province might not be needed, but a readership in Canada (and maybe the US) might not need the country. I've always noticed on American game shows, they always seems to answer the question of "where are you from" with the state, even for cities like San Francisco, Seattle and LA. Mingmingla (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Mingmingla. It's an odd historical artifact that the US, Canada, and to a lesser extent, Australia, are really the only times these things even come up. You would never, for example, talk about Dresden, Saxony, Germany. Or Dresden, Saxony, for that matter. I recall the weird feeling as a teen when I first noticed that atlases print US states and Canadian provinces in different colours, but all other sub-national political divisions were always done in a single colour. Not sure why exactly - or if they still do that. Matt Deres (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The American states are not "sub-national political divisions", but rather they are 50 states which combine to form the USA. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are, in fact, 50 states bounded by sub-national political divisions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the way to look at it if one does not understand what the USA states really are.

In America, a given city name can occur in any state. Wikipedia has some obsession with not specifying the state name, which runs counter to common usage (as well as common sense, not that Wikipedia has ever been accused of having any). If I'm in Texas and mention "El Paso", they will likely assume I'm referring to El Paso, Texas. If I'm in central Illinois and mention "El Paso", they will likely assume I'm referring to El Paso, Illinois. And so on. As for a city such as Toronto, an American would likely say "Toronto, Canada" because which province it's in doesn't much matter unless there's more than one of them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the way to look at it if one does not understand that the USA is not always as exceptional as some of its residents like to think.

Iceland has a pair of Reykholts. Norway has six Viks. Canada has something like a hundred cities with names duplicated at least once across its ten provinces, and at least eight that appear three times: [3]. Appropriately, Germany has two Steins (and a whole bunch of hyphenated variants); interestingly, the Swiss have four. The number of rather unimaginatively-named Newtowns in England is staggering.

Lots of modern nations contain cities with duplicated names – often many such – as a result of those communities historically being separated by geographical and/or political boundaries that have been lowered by more recent social and technological developments. While U.S. states (like Canadian provinces, Swiss cantons, or German states) were once independent from one another to a lesser or greater extent, and still retain some greater or lesser control and powers, they are all now inextricably part of and answerable to larger nations. Federal law applies in all U.S. states. The division of authority between the federal and state governments is apportioned by a single, national constitution. Unilateral secession from the union is not an option; see Texas v. White. While it is true that the USA originated as fifty (or so) states that were agglomerated over the years, the borders between states truly are sub-national boundaries in every meaningful sense. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that Toronto was well enough known to stand on it's own feet; if you have no idea where Toronto is, being told that it's in Ontario isn't going to be much help. I would just say "Toronto" and "in Canada" if it needed clarification - we Brits value our prepositions. Alansplodge (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I figured here. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my American social and professional circle (educated, Northeastern), it would be unusual to add Ontario or Canada to the name Toronto in everyday speech. Toronto, standing alone, can refer to only one place, namely the largest city in Canada. If someone wanted to refer to one of the other, obscure Torontos (such as Toronto, Iowa), he or she would add the appropriate locator. I suppose it would be different if you lived one town over from Toronto, Iowa, but most Americans are not familiar with a Toronto other than the Canadian one. That said, if you are making a list of Canadian cities, and the list includes cities other than the 7 or 8 largest cities, then you'd want to list the name of the province after each city. You would do this because the list would include cities not familiar to people outside of Canada and because you want the list to be consistent. That is, since you are listing "St. John, New Brunswick", you would list "Toronto, Ontario" for consistency of format. On the other hand, if you are making a list of world cities, and that list includes Toronto, you should treat Toronto the same as any other city in the list. For example, if New York appears as just "New York" or "New York City", then you'd list just "Toronto". On the other hand, if New York is listed as "New York, New York" (a format that makes sense only if the list is limited to the U.S. and Canada), you'd list "Toronto, Ontario". Finally, if New York appeared as "New York, United States", you'd want "Toronto, Canada". Marco polo (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The city is always spelled as Saint John, with no abbreviation. I've seen the associated county and river go under both names (as in our articles), probably due to the influence of the spelling of the city. Matt Deres (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

My apparent error proves my point that this is a city not well known outside of Canada. Marco polo (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is yet another WP:ENGVAR issue. The UK takes a fairly pragmatic approach to these things. The place will be named without clarification if any of the following apply:

If the name is unique or believed to be unique, eg Haverfordwest
If there is duplication, but one intends to speak of the prime example of that name, eg London
If there is duplication, but one intends to speak of the most local example of that place, eg the nearest Newtown

Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 09:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's pretty much what everyone uses in most informal contexts, Dweller. The actual question at hand was whether - having already decided clarification was needed - to use city, province, country or city, province or city, country. They chose Toronto as just an example; few other Canadian cities (just Montreal, I'd guess) are globally so well known as to not require some kind of context. Matt Deres (talk) 11:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd count Vancouver and Ottawa, too. Carrot River, not so much. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As others have pointed out, context makes all the difference. Vancouver can usually stand on its own as non-ambiguous, and Vancouver goes directly to the Canadian city. But in the context of the regional area between Vancouver and Portland, especially in Washington, and especially for people driving I-5, it is important to distinguish Vancouver, BC, from Vancouver, Washington, as highway signs along I-5 in Washington do (they tend to say "Vancouver, BC" and just "Vancouver" for the one in Washington). Vancouver, WA, is perhaps a little annoyed at the upstart city in BC, and has now and then considered changing its name to "Old Vancouver" to alleviate confusion—and perhaps point out how it is actually quite a bit older than Vancouver, BC. In any case, all this regional stuff lends itself to the idea that Canadian cities are given a province identifier when it is needed, ie, Vancouver, BC, not Vancouver, Canada. Though perhaps it is easier with British Columbia, since it has a good two-letter abbreviation, BC, much like US states but not easily confused with any states (no US state starts with "B"). Perhaps it is more difficult for provinces like Manitoba. Pfly (talk) 09:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manitoba is abbreviated "MB", though I don't know if that's recommended for Wikipedia. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And then there's the special problem of Quebec, which, while well known, is both a city and a province. You can call it Quebec City, but I doubt if those who live there actually do. StuRat (talk) 07:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been chided by a few people in the province for adding "City". One man was angry enough about it to permanently change my mind. But yeah, on Wikipedia, it definitely helps differentiate. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I hadn't read that into the question. I hear people speaking USEng apply unnecessary clarification to placenames fairly regularly. --Dweller (talk) 11:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Federal and State Legal Databases

Is there a complete list of federal and state laws available online? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CensoredScribe (talk • contribs) 20:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the federal laws are volumes-worth. I doubt they're all online. But have you tried any of the US government websites? They might well have a "contact us" or something like that, where someone might be able to give you a better answer. As regards states, start with the state you live in and look for their government page and do likewise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the USA, many (most? all?) individual states have their codes online. Some of them have better search/database functions than others. E.g. I just googled /[state] code/, and easily found the official sites that give the list/database of laws for Ohio [4], and California, [5]. For the federal level, see here [6], which does indeed have several volumes worth. I can't find any specific claim that it is complete or exhaustive, but the language leads me to think it is. There may be third-party databases that have state and federal codes together (and cities, counties, etc.), but for anything that mattered, I'd only trust a current page from a .gov site. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the USA? Australia has federal and state laws too. Maybe other places do too. HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

off-topic discussion, continue at talk page if desired

A look at the OP's recent edits will make it pretty clear he's talking about the USA. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to look at their recent edits. The fact that they didn't specify proves that they're asking about the USA. 163.202.48.126 (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think 163 is joking or trolling. Come on people, this is not the place for this. I'm sorry if I offended HiLo. I did not know where the OP meant, but I do know that in a majority of cases here that I've seen, unspecified often means USA. I don't like that this is the general trend, but there it is. I didn't assume the OP meant USA, but I made an answer that would help if USA was the target country. I also told my method, which works just fine for AU and CA. Others are free to post refs for AU or other places if they think that would be helpful. Remember, even if the OP means one area, these answers are archived, and may proved useful for readers in other areas as well. If you want to discuss how we handle such region-not-specified questions, please use the talk page. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was joking - sort of... 163.202.48.126 (talk) 08:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lowest ranking US Govt position that provides personal security?

What is the lowest-ranking/most junior office in the US government that entitles its holder to a personal security detail/bodyguard? Acceptable (talk) 23:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Various low-level diplomatic officers posted to dangerous locales get this type of security. For offices that systematically receive such protection, United States Ambassadors qualify, regardless of where they are posted. --Xuxl (talk) 08:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]